GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION Joseph R. Herkert
Engineering Ethics: Continuing and Emerging Issues Part II — Education
judgment; and d) improved ethical will-power (that is, a greater ability to act ethically when one wants to).
Many of the ongoing developments in engineering ethics education are influenced by recent changes in ABET’s accreditation criteria [5]. The Engineering Criteria 2000 promises to significantly alter the landscape of engineering education in the United States. One potential outcome of Criteria 2000 is increased The last quarter of the twentieth century witnessed attention in the curriculum to the ethical responsibilimany notable changes in engineering education includ- ties of engineers and the societal context of engineering growing recognition of the importance of ethics and ing. The focal point of attention on Criteria 2000 has social responsibility. Spurred in part by been Criterion 3, which specifies propolitical controversy over nuclear gram outcomes and assessment. weapons, environmental quality, and Among other outcomes, “engineering consumer rights, and changing educaprograms must demonstrate that their tional standards promoted by the graduates have… an understanding of Accreditation Board for Engineering professional and ethical responsibiliand Technology (ABET), engineering ty…[and] the broad education neceseducators began to take seriously the sary to understand the impact of engichallenge of educating professionals neering solutions in a global and who are both technically competent and societal context [1].” ethically sensitive. Engineering ethics In this issue, as IEEE Technology has begun to make its mark in engineerand Society Magazine concludes its ing curricula including: required courses Joseph R. Herkert twentieth year of publication, we prein engineering ethics at a few prominent sent the second of two parts of a special institutions; across-the-curriculum issue on continuing and emerging ethics initiatives; and numerous elective courses in issues in engineering ethics. Part I published in Sepengineering ethics, some of which are options under tember 2001 focused on research and analytical broader general education requirements [1]. frameworks for engineering ethics. In Part II we turn While the goals of engineering ethics instruction to issues in engineering ethics education. Once again, are the subject of continuing discussion [2], [3], there thanks are due to all of the authors and reviewers of the is general agreement with the sought-after outcomes special issue. described by Davis [4]: In the first article Karl Stephan asks “Is Engineering Ethics Optional?” In responding to this question Teaching engineering ethics…can achieve at Stephan compares the current state of engineering ethics least four desirable outcomes: a) increased ethieducation to the study of differential equations in early cal sensitivity; b) increased knowledge of rele20th century engineering ethics curricula. Stephan vant standards of conduct; c) improved ethical argues that engineering ethics has become essential to the practice of engineering ethics for many of the same Guest Editor Joseph Herkert is with North Caroli- reasons that differential equations became standard fare, na State University, Division of Multidisciplinary i.e., both are required as a result of the growing comStudies, Box 7107, Raleigh, NC 27695-7107; email: plexity of technology and the growing sophistication of
[email protected]. engineering practice. Stephan concludes with a brief
4
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Winter 2001/2002
discussion of methods for introducing engineering ethics into an already crowded curriculum. In his article “Using History and Sociology to Teach Engineering Ethics,” Ronald Kline, a former editor of this magazine, takes issue with conventional approaches to engineering ethics that focus on engineering disasters. More generally, he is critical of the tendency to present engineering ethics content and cases with little or no consideration of their historical and social contexts. He argues persuasively for integration of material from Science and Technology Studies (STS) with that of conventional ethics instruction. Interdisciplinary approaches such as that advocated by Kline stand to mutually strengthen engineering ethics and STS education while addressing in an integrated fashion the ABET outcomes concerned with professionalism and ethics and global and societal impact. Addressing multiple ABET outcomes is an explicit focus of Michael Gorman in his article “Turning Students into Ethical Professionals.” Gorman discusses a number of frameworks and methods for addressing the learning outcomes in ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000, including knowledge types, interdisciplinary teams, and integrative senior thesis projects. Gorman argues that a useful theme for linking these methods is the notion of “engineering heroes.” (A critique of the concept of engineering heroes was included in Part I of this special issue [6].) Marilyn Dyrud shows how engineering ethics material can be used effectively in general professional ethics courses in her paper, “Teaching Engineering Ethics to Non-Engineering Students.” Dyrud finds this interdisciplinary experience to be of value to engineering and non-engineering students alike, as well as pro-
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Winter 2001/2002
viding valuable lessons both to those who teach professional ethics courses and those who teach courses focused on engineering ethics. It is significant that none of the authors in Part II are philosophers. Since it is unlikely that there will be many instances where courses in engineering ethics are required and taught by philosophers, it is incumbent upon the community of engineering educators —including those who teach humanities and social sciences to engineering students — to see that ethical problems, standards of conduct, and critical thinking skills are adequately developed in the engineering curriculum. For engineering ethics education to fulfil its promise, engineering educators must face head on the societal and ethical implications of engineering [1].
REFERENCES [1] J. Herkert, “Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy, and curriculum,” European J. Engineering Education, vol. 25, pp. 303-313, 2000. [2] C. Glagola, M. Kam, M. Loui, and C. Whitbeck, “Teaching ethics in engineering and computer science: A panel discussion,” Science & Engineering Ethics, vol. 3, pp. 463-480, 1997. [3] W. Sweet, M. Davis, C. Harris, J. Herkert, M. Loui, I. Nair, M. Pritchard, M. Rabins, G. Sammet, Jr., C.M. Skooglund, Jr., J. Smith, V. Weil, and C. Whitbeck, “Educating ethical engineers,” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 51-61, 1998. [4] M. Davis, “Teaching ethics across the engineering curriculum,” Online Proceedings of International Conference on Ethics in Engineering and Computer Science, http://onlineethics.org/essays/education/davis.html, 1999. [5] J. Herkert, “ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000 and engineering ethics: Where do we go from here?” Online Proceedings of International Conference on Ethics in Engineering and Computer Science, http://www.onlineethics.org/essays/education/herkert2.html, 1999. [6] A. Adam, “Heroes or sibyls: Gender and engineering ethics,” IEEE Technology & Society Mag., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 39-46, 2001.
5
